Date:  Sat, 5 Nov 1994 10:42:00 -0600

From:  Katherine Catmull <kate[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]BGA.COM>

Subject: Re: "them" singulars



>  Furthermore, I am unwilling to apologize for it. The use of a plural

>  pronoun to stand for a singular referent in order to achieve gender

>  ambiguity seems to me to be heavy PC.



I don't think this is the case. It has been commonly used in informal

speech throughout my lifetime at least. When I taught freshman English,

well before "PC" (I don't like that term, but that's another subject) was

an issue, it was one of the most common mistakes in student papers.



I think the problem is that we need a gender neutral singular pronoun, and

English speakers are grabbing the handiest possibility.



I believe the singular "they" is in the throes of becoming common usage. I

have no problem with that.



>  For one thing, although in the mists

>  of history there may have been some male dominance suggestion in the use

>  of "him" as a generic for "human being," in the case in question "him" is

>  certainly a generic form. To demonstrate this one need only suppose that

>  it was intended as masculine.



It leads to amusing sentences, though, such as one I recall that went

something like this: "Whether a patient is in the hospital for heart

surgery, a broken bone, or to give birth, he . . ." If "he" were truly a

gender-neutral pronoun, there would be no problem with this sentence, when

clearly there is.



>  Furthermore, the situation is easily avoided by either

>  changing "person" to the plural form, or using the (admittedly somewhat

>  awkward) "him/her."



If "he" were truly a gender-neutral pronoun, why would this be necessary?



>  We already find ourselves in a situation in which

>  grammatical structure has broken down to the extent that millions of

>  Americans are unable to say clearly what they mean.



This has not been my experience.



Kate Catmull

kate[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]bga.com